P3D Re: optics of stereo viewers

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998
>From: GBMars <GBMars@xxxxxxx>
>..............
>
>I wonder if it is really a problem that LCDs are generally small?  I mean,
>people
>buy large monitors to get higher resolution, but that doesn't apply (much) to
>LCDs.  If you could have 1280 x 960 (or 1024) pixels in a 12 inch display
>what's
>the problem?  I know - those of us over 40 can't focus close enough to see
>pixels that tiny!

*****  The real issue isn't that the pixel sizes are smaller. While you may
not be able to see individual pixels as well, the smaller pixels won't
disrupt diagonal lines so much. 

The problem with a 12" screen is that there isn't enough room on it to
arrange and use many of the windows and panels common to lots of programs.
In using a 17" monitor, I've sized the fonts to an optimum visible size,
which would need to be the same relative size on any screen to be equally
visible. The 17" screen isn't big enough for what I do, so I know a 12" is
WAY TOO SMALL to consider. If LCD technology can provide smaller pixels than
CRTs, then I want a resolution correspondingly higher for whatever actual
area I want relative to size. I'd love 4000 by 2000 pixels for example, on a
21" or bigger surface. No more hassle with jagged edges in diagonals that
are far more visible than the current pixel sizes, though intimately
connected as cause and effect.

As for dreaming of an idea, ...  I need and want a monitor that I can
stretch the horizontal dimension at will and as needed to proportions of
HDTV and even much wider than that... and in full time stereo. Maybe wrap it
around the entire area of my physical desk. Very immersive. No control
panels would have to overlap my actual work surfaces.

>
>Anyway, what this all means to stereo is mixed:  Larry Berlin might be happy
>that LCDs have virtually zero geometric distortion (unlike CRTs), 

*****  In some ways I don't care what the surface of the CRT is like as long
as it's stereo operation is flat. But I would like a flat device instead of
the big heavy glass thing with a vacuum inside, and for now that looks like
LCD in some fashion.

>but since
>LCDs use polarization to turn pixels on and off, the current LCS schemes for
>sequential stereo wouldn't work!  

****  You're saying that the LCS glasses, that darken and lighten with it's
own cross polarization to provide sequential operation, won't function with
an LCD screen? What effect does the screen polarization have relative to the
view when one side of the LCS glasses is *open*? Does it create color
distortion, or partial polarity problems, or something else?

>............ Of course, the perfect alignment of pixels on an LCD would
>make a lenticular display quite possible - in fact, I've seen this done with
>full motion stereo video.
>

****  The idea of using lenticular and LCD is quite interesting. I'd like to
see such a display in action. What about access to the sweet spot? Is this
likely to cause headaches from keeping one's head in the right spot?

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------